The Monk’s Podcast 92 with Garuda Prabhu – Relationship is the essential purpose of guru-tattva

Podcast:

Summary podcast:

Video:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna, Guruji. Thank you very much for joining the Monks Podcast once again.
Hare Krishna. It’s always to engage in wonderful Kata with you, Chetan and Charanji. Thank you.
It’s so illuminating and refreshing to see your perspectives, which are both based on scripture at the same time intelligible to the contemporary mind. So that I think is always a challenge. We sometimes veer in this direction where we say, I want to follow the scripture, but I don’t then we don’t care what people think about us.
At the same time, we think so much about people, then we start, say, almost misinterpreting scripture for that purpose. I find that balance is very challenging and I love to see how you have arrived at that. So I thought today we will discuss probably what is one of the most challenging subjects, challenging not just in, say, philosophical terms, but also in the consequentiality with which it affects an average devotee’s life.
Yes. That is the subject of the Guru, the spiritual master. Yes.
So I had three, four directions in which I broadly thought we could take it. But of course, if you have some thoughts, we can see. I think I thought of four different things.
One is, first of all, for most devotees, it is the practical accessibility that they don’t have access to the spiritual master so much. Then there is also the question that comes up of the way the system of the spiritual master is and the scriptural foundation of the scriptural basis for how we understand the position of the spiritual master in our movement. Then third is the institutionalization.
How does the spiritual master reconcile with the institutional structure? And then the fourth I felt is the sense of, say, obedience and responsibility. That sometimes the idea of surrendering to the spiritual master is so much emphasized that the devotees themselves don’t take up responsibility so much. And then eventually, the spiritual master becomes unavailable because of departing from the world or because of maybe some other situations, unfortunate, then the devotee’s life, completely disabled life can be shattered completely.
So these are the four broad areas I had. Would you like to go along this or how would you like to take it ahead? Marvelous. Marvelous.
I think all four things we could cover at least a little bit. Yes. So you’ll have to guide me if you want all four, then we can make sure that we get to all four.
But I have some introductory remarks that I think are very important for setting the stage. Yes. You know why, Chetan and Sharanji? Because what guru is, is so important for a foundation of understanding.
So, of course, when I talk about what guru is, I am speaking about, of course, guru tattva. Guru tattva. Okay.
Now that word tattva is a very interesting word. Tattva can be translated as principle. Tattva can be translated as truth.
Tattva can be translated as reality. Literally, the word consists of two parts. Its morphology is tatt, which is a demonstrative pronoun, meaning that.
And then tva is the abstract ending, which means ness. Tattva, that ness. The reality of it.
The that ness of it. And we have that phrase, tattva, as you well know, as we both well know, in our bhakti theology. And I would like to point to its meaning as something universal.
Guru is universal. That is to say, as I once tried to articulate in the 1984 Vyasa Puja, I don’t know if I have it somewhere, but there was always a devotee in the printed books from BBT, the Vyasa Pujas, the old Vyasa Pujas, who would explain what is Vyasa Puja, what is the meaning of Vyasa Puja. So I was chosen in 1984 to write that.
And in there, I start by talking about how there are teachers everywhere in every culture. The reality of a teacher, that is to say, someone who has received the teachings of a culture and then someone who transmits it to students. This is everywhere.
The case in the most primal societies, in the most advanced societies and everything in between. Teachers are a reality. Teaching is everywhere.
And when we speak about guru tattva in the bhakti context, we’re speaking about a particular kind of teacher who is especially representing not merely a culture, but divinity itself. So I might be a teacher of mathematics or a teacher of biology. So that mathematics goes way back, I mean, probably to Egyptians, to Arabic-speaking cultures, and of course, India was very advanced in mathematics as well.
Those have cultural limits. But divinity is something beyond culture. It utilizes culture.
It comes through culture. But divinity is beyond culture. So here is a culture of teachers who are supposed to be able to represent divinity to the student.
So that’s a tall order. Beautiful. So there is a very universal aspect to the thatness of the guru.
At the same time, there is a very specificity. You could say the teaching principle is universal, but the subject that they are teaching, or the person or the reality that they are teaching or representing, that is categorically different from all other realities. Good.
Nicely put. Now let’s add to that. Okay, we’re going to build here.
Okay. Yeah. So just as with mathematics or biology, one can teach this at a primary or secondary school level, you know, a primary sort of basic level, secondary, a little more advanced.
Or one can teach this as a university professor, very advanced. It is the same with guru in representing divinity. One can be a very basic teacher, a kineshta guru, or a madhyama guru, or an uttama guru.
Okay. So there are various levels. And then there are some gurus who are major advancers.
They’ve made major advancements in the culture of bhakti. And these are special acharyas. So even, so for example, if I teach philosophy, you know, I’m going to be invoking, you know, Friedrich Hegel in the West, that is Hegel, Immanuel Kant, Descartes, Spinoza, you know, Plotinus, Plato, Heraclitus, whatever, right? I mean, I’m just speaking off the top of my head here.
But these are the acharyas. These are the major personages who have advanced the tradition in extraordinary ways. And so their teachings will always be invoked.
We also have that in our bhakti tradition. Just one minute. You mentioned this hierarchy.
Sure. So kineshta, madhyama, uttama, and then you give the example. So there are two things.
One is if you compare them with the primary, secondary, and university teachers, it is the level at which they are teaching. And the second is the level at which they themselves are. So when we’re talking about kineshta, madhyama, uttama, now if you consider the, as you say, the acharyas of philosophy, it’s not so much the level at which they taught.
They themselves were reputed philosophers. So when we talk about the spiritual masters being at different levels, are you talking about both their personal level of realization and the content of their teaching or one of those? Both. Just as you presented.
So I may be an uttama bhakta teaching basic kineshta for the basic kineshta audience. I mean, Prabhupada was in that position when he first came to the U.S. He had to teach basic. But gradually he presented teachings that were more and more advanced.
He presented bhagavad-gita first. And then he presented bhagavatam second. And then, of course, you know, the chittanantamita in all its glory.
Okay, so there is a fine example of how one can be in a certain position and teach at different levels. Now, so I tried to show also a parallel between what we do in bhakti culture and what’s done in academic culture. You know, it’s very similar.
Why? Because it’s guru tattva. There’s no getting around it. Yeah.
It’s a tattva. Yeah. Okay.
Yeah. It’s beautiful. That, that, that, thatness, the thatness of that reality.
So you are, you’re drawing a parallel between the, how that reality is present, say, in all fields, then you could say in all traditions. And even within our tradition, thatness manifests at different levels. And so some naturally become much more elevated.
Or what they would teach will also be invoked much, much longer. So that’s right. You know, I think Prabhupada talks about this same theme in his, in his Vyasa Puja offering to Bhakti Sahasrao Thakur, he says, there is, the guru is one, and he has many manifestations.
That’s quite a, you could say, eloquent lecture of Srila Prabhupada, which I think is in science of self-realization. Yes. Yes.
And in bhakti, as you know, as you well know, Chaitanya Charanjee, whenever you assert oneness, you also are tacitly referring to non-oneness, variegatedness. When we assert oneness, we’re trying to overcome perhaps some of the distractiveness of variegatedness. But the variegatedness is important also.
And oneness can distract us from the variegatedness. So we have to have both. And of course, that’s there in our, you know, Vedantic philosophy.
Yes. Tattva. Beautiful.
Yeah. So I think among, so you said this would be like a found, like a background for what we going to discuss about the spiritual master. So then now, if we can go on to the scriptural idea or what is taught in the scripture, the conception of this, can I go ahead with that? Or you want to elaborate something on the introduction more? So, well, I could say one more thing.
Yes, please. Guru is a relationship word. Oh, yeah.
So it’s like a father or a mother. That’s right. Yeah.
If I get, if I come on here and say, I’m a father. I’m a father now. And you say, you’re such a gentleman.
I’m sure you would say, well, that’s wonderful. What did you have, a boy or a girl? So I don’t have any kids yet. I’m a father.
It doesn’t make any sense. Okay. You would say, Guruji, you know, you might need some psychiatric assistance.
You’re delusional. But you see, an institutional, the institutional guru that we often experience is you’ve been declared a father without children yet. How does that work out? What do you mean by that? Well, you know, in ISKCON, you go through a process by which you are qualified to be a father.
And then you’re declared as a father. But you may not have any children yet. You’re a guru.
You’re a guru. So you’re officiating, you know, you’re an official ISKCON guru. Now I’ve got to look for disciples.
Oh, I thought, I thought the way the system works is that it’s only when there are a certain number of devotees who are aspiring for initiation. Then the issue is discussed by the Guru’s committee or the GBC or whatever. And then the approval comes.
That means there are already people who want to be the students, who want to be specific disciples. So am I getting something wrong here? Well, I think that happens as well. But technically, I don’t have to have anyone asking for initiation.
I can go through the guru process, get 10 letters of recommendation from people, from devotees, go through the guru process, and then just be available. It’s sort of like opening up a guru shop. Oh, okay.
I’m available for purchase. It’s, but you see, that’s not the way it should work. Now, I respect the institutional system that they’ve got, but I cannot participate in it for various reasons.
And we can talk about that later. But I respect what ISKCON’s trying to do. They’re trying to ensure for the prospective disciples that such disciples would be getting a guru who truly is qualified.
They’re trying to prevent unqualified persons from initiating. So I understand this. I’ve spoken to various GBC members.
So the institution is reacting to very bad experiences of the past. And what they want is to provide training, recommendations, and so on, to prevent that from happening. Yes.
We could talk about the problems with that later, if you wish. Yes, true. So your point is actually, in a sense, this is, I have, I always try to phrase into that, there’s organic groups or organic development and there is like organizational development.
Yeah. So what you’re saying is that the guru is organic, a guru will organically emerge when the guru teaches and people want to become students. That’s right.
Whereas organizational, Prabhupada was, in a sense, an organic spiritual master. The Gaudiya Amma at all, his spiritual master, and even his spiritual master didn’t specifically appoint him. That’s right.
But he just had this, he just was so potent spiritually that people wanted to be his students. Precisely. Yeah.
And if you think about it, Chetan and Charanji, Prabhupada invested so much work in the structure of ISKCON, namely the GBC managing body. It was also supposed to be some kind of leadership body as well. And the BBT, those two organizations.
The idea of Guru Shishya was very casual with Prabhupada. It was almost an afterthought. He never spoke of it, particularly as in terms of ISKCON carrying on initiations.
It was very casual. He’d never established an institutional Guru. And you know why? Because you cannot control relationships.
You cannot adjudicate relationships between people. Well, if I may play the devil’s advocate. Please.
Even in the worldly sense, there has to be, if a man and a woman fall in love with each other, there is a state government or something which certifies the institution of marriage. Maybe there’s a church or something like that. So there is a formalization which does come from an external institution.
And that also brings some amount of stability and gravity to the relationship. That of course, you cannot force a man and a woman to just, you are married and you stay together. There has to be some amount of connections which may come before or after whatever.
But can you really separate completely the idea of some kind of authorization by an external source? Maybe authorization is not the exact word, formalization. I don’t know. What do they do? I say, by the power invested by the state in me, I declare you man and wife, husband and wife.
Yes, yes. What are they doing exactly? Yes. And that has legal taxation implications.
But the fact is, there are people with the marital certificate that can’t stand each other. Yeah, that’s… Legally, we’re married, but my wife and I, we can’t stand each other. Now, what kind of marriage is that? Now, it also works the other way.
My wife and I are totally in love with each other or my partner, but we’re not legally married. But you know what? In the law, in many states, there’s something called a common law marriage. The state regards you as married if you’ve been together for 10 years or longer.
Okay. So there you go. See, I’ve defeated you with a secular example that opposes the devil’s advocate.
I could continue the devil’s advocate and say that this is a subversion of the tradition. And many people would consider this common law marriage. That’s something to be quite profane.
Yeah. That it is what erodes the sanctity of the institution of marriage. But I get your point that overall, you cannot… See, there’s one thing which is two people want to marry, and there is some external source which formalizes it.
But the another is that it’s almost like not the marriage is formalized, but everything about the marriage is orchestrated. Then it becomes, okay, this is the person. You have to marry this person.
So in one sense, the way the institutionalized structure, like we know in Iskcon Institute, there was Honal Acharya earlier. So there it was almost like an aspiring disciple. There was no matter of the discipleship.
It was not a matter of the heart’s inspiration. It was simply a matter of geographical location. If you are introduced over here.
So that I would say it’s completely… It doesn’t really at all gel with the way the relationship would work. And I can say that maybe it’s not that open that a husband and wife can’t stand each other. So I don’t know whether disciple and Guru would not stand each other.
But even that could happen if it’s that, if there is no inspiration involved and it’s simply like geographical quota allocation or something like that. Is that what you’re hinting at when you say that the institution should not be involved? Yes. The idea here is if the institution is going to be involved, it should be blessing the substantive relationships that are naturally forming.
Beautiful. Yeah. Rather than starting with the institutional requirements and having the gurus and disciples fit into it.
It’s backwards. We have to be careful that an institution of bhakti doesn’t fall prey to the fallibilities of outside secular institutions. Because when you’re married and you have the certificate, people look at you like, oh, well, they’re married.
But if this is a couple that fights, this is a couple that has no love for their children. Can you call that a marriage? I don’t. It begins with the substantive dynamics, interpersonal dynamics between parts.
If I am your disciple and I don’t ever follow any of your instructions, I don’t even attend you or admire you. I mean, what kind of relationship, kind of guru-disciple relationship is that? It is not. But if I honor you and I offer obeisance and I learn from you, I come to you for advice.
This is, in fact, explained in the shastras that these are the things that you do. These are the things a disciple does. How can I advance, oh, Gurudev? How can I advance in Krishna bhakti? Please guide me.
This is guru. This is substance. Yes, true.
So and then you directly tell me how I can advance in Krishna bhakti. Look, I’m ready. Look, you know, guru starts with the one person at the kineshta stage.
Chaitanya Charanjee would be my guru. So hold on, you know, your humility is embarrassing me, sir. Your humility is embarrassing me, you know.
I would be in the position of your disciple. Let’s put a third person over there. Yeah, well, but I like the idea of sort of personalizing it right here.
I mean, yes, of course, Prabhupada is my guru. But so I come to you and you’re my guru. I’m a beginning devotee.
I don’t really accept the advice from other people. Okay, my vision is very narrow as a kineshta bhakta. Then as I grow and you help me advance.
Okay, and I’m doing all the things that are natural between a guru and a shishya. I’m advancing and then you help me understand how to be discerning. So I can go to the classes of other great Vaishnavas, like yourself, and listen to them.
And you even encourage me, listen to these wonderful Vaishnavas. And then you teach me how to be discerning when someone goes a little off, you know, in the lecture, you know, and then I come back to you and I say, Guru Dev, I heard a lecture in which this was emphasized that. And then you say, well, that is a narrow understanding.
There is a wider, a broader understanding that could be had here. And I will help you with that. So you are right to sense that something was not quite right.
So you’re guiding me in how to see guru, not just with you, but in others. And ultimately, the ultimate disciple sees guru everywhere, sees everyone. Every guru, guru, guru is teaching me everywhere and everything.
That’s beautiful. I went to a Facebook site. I happened across a Facebook site in which six devotees, I may have told you the six devotees were criticizing me and my translation.
But right. I told you about this, right? Yes. Sometime.
Right. And I went to them. I went to them very sincerely, even though they were slandering me.
I went to them and I said, look, if you actually have some valuable criticism, that better ways that I can conduct my service to my spiritual master. Then you will be my spiritual master. You will be a shikshi guide for me.
And I welcome that. Not one, not one even answer me back. So there, see, so there’s a teaching in that, you see.
Yeah. So you are giving this as an example of how one can actually see the spiritual master in action everywhere. You know, Prabhupada even saw the spiritual master in, say, a postman who told him, don’t people throw magazines.
You write books, people keep the books. That’s right. Or Prabhupada even, we could say that Prabhupada said even my disciples have been sent by my Guru Maharaj, by he has sent all of you to me.
That’s right. So now just backtracking a little bit about the way the spiritual masters or the guru system works. If I look at scripture itself, it seems that the guru is not so emphasized.
Say, for example, in the Mahabharata or in the Ramayana, there seems to be a deep respect for brahminical culture and a readiness to learn from many sages. But I don’t think the Mahabharata even mentions who specifically the initiating guru of the Pandavas was. Or even the Ramayana, Vishwamitra took Ram out and he gave him some mantras.
So we could say he’s his guru. But then we don’t see Vishwamitra guiding Ram throughout his life the way, it was not like a lifelong relationship where at every step in life he’s consulting. Vashishtha was more like his priest.
But when Ram even decided to stay on in the forest, Vashishtha told him come back and he said no. So it seems to be that in scripture, it is the idea of guru. If you look at the Mahabharata, Ramayana, it doesn’t seem to be that prominent.
Prominent. And even in the Bhagavatam also, there is, yes, Shukadeva Goswami is the person who speaks to Parikshit Maharaj. But Parikshit Maharaj had a life before that and he was the king.
So he would obviously have needed some guidance from someone before that. And it seems that that was the first time that Shukadeva Goswami and Parikshit Maharaj met each other because that’s seen as one of the symbols of renunciation of Shukadeva Goswami that he would not associate with worldly people like kings. So that if Parikshit Maharaj had some other guru, he didn’t hear from that guru.
He actually came to Shukadeva Goswami. So either he didn’t have a guru, if he had, then why did he not go to that guru? Why did he come and ask the sages and among them Shukadeva Goswami emerged? So the whole idea is that the way we think of the guru as one person who’s going to guide a disciple lifelong, that doesn’t seem to be that way in the scriptures. Or even if it was there, it’s not depicted in the scriptures so much.
Well, let me counter that a little bit. Sure, please. Or balance it, maybe balance it because the overall outer shell narrative of the Bhagavatam is created because of Narada Muni’s guidance to Vyasa.
Okay. And this is so significant that this relationship between Narada Muni and Vyasa, Dave, is very significant. So there is a guru-shishya relationship between them, obviously, right? Yes, no doubt.
And right, okay. Now, we call the birthday of the guru Vyasa Puja. And Vyasa is the disciple, not the guru.
Okay, and here’s the thing. The guru should be the best disciple. That’s the idea.
And what is the example of guru in Vyasa? That he sought to preserve and protect and elevate and advance the bhakti teachings more directly. He was not stagnant in his understanding. He was always evolving and furthering his understanding.
So Mahabharata, he was not satisfied, right? The Vedas, he was not satisfied. Hmm. So Narada says, speak directly about the personality of Godhead.
So that’s the example of Vyasa. We sit on the seat of Vyasa when we’re guiding others. And that means that no guru should ever feel that they’ve got it, but that they’re getting it, that they’re going toward a greater, more advanced way of teaching it.
You know, I’ve taught for now in the university for 30 years. And I teach often the same course. Do I teach the same course the same way? No, I try to do what Vyasa does.
Teach it better the next time. Do it better. Advance the understanding.
Climb higher. The previous way I taught it was like Vyasa’s Mahabharata. And the present way I’m doing it is an attempt to be my Bhagavata.
And then next year, my Bhagavata now will be my Mahabharata then. Okay. You know, in the Bhagavad Gita also this theme comes.
In 10.8, it says these people are Budha. That those who know Krishna, Aham Sarvasya Prabho, Matta Sarvam Rauti, Budha Bhava Samanvita. The next word says that those Budhas keep enlightening each other.
Bodhayantah Parasparam. That’s right. Enlightened, keep enlightening each other.
So it’s like, it’s, I sometimes think of enlightenment more like a direction than a destination. Exactly. It’s a journey that keeps going on.
Yes. A destination is for the Advaitins. A direction is for the Dvaitins.
Oh, beautifully put. So for the Advaitins, once you merge, it’s over. It’s in the destination.
That’s right. It’s perfection. Now, we do speak about perfection.
But ironically, our sense of perfection is imperfection, not in the sense of flawed, but in the sense, the grammatical sense of being in perfection, but going further for greater perfection. So that’s direction. That’s beautiful.
Yeah. Krishna’s going unlimited. Imperfect.
The imperfect tense in grammar means something that has happened in the past that continues on in the present. Whereas past perfect tense is the Advaitins. Something that occurred in the past and was completed.
That’s the past perfect tense. Whereas we’re the imperfect tense. We have not become perfect in the past.
We are imperfect now because there’s so much more of the mystery of Krishna’s divinity into which we want to dive. That’s amazing. So now when you’re using the word imperfect, here it is, the Prabhupada says we will all attain perfection.
You’re using the word imperfect in the sense of ongoing journey. And Prabhupada uses the word perfect. It’s more in the sense that we become situated in our eternal position as the servants of Krishna.
So he uses the word perfection in that sense. Whereas say you are, I think you’re using it in the sense of maybe like the love and separation where the Gopis always feel that we want to know more Krishna. The Goswami is also saying that where is Krishna? I don’t have Krishna with me.
That’s right. It’s insatiability. It’s not enough.
I’ve reached the ultimate and that’s not enough. In love, we can never be close enough to the Beloved. Beautiful.
You can never be close enough to the Beloved. Yeah, so that’s why we have Shri Goswami Arjuna saying we want to hear more and more. That’s right.
So the sound vibration is the way they want to come closer and that’s never enough. That’s right. Okay.
So just backtracking a little bit. So how is this related with, I mentioned about the way we think of the Guru is not there in scripture and you said that you look at the example of Narada Muni and Vyasadev as being there in the foundational structure of the Bhagavatam. So yeah, it does seem that Vyasadev and Narada Muni had a previous relationship.
And at this time, when Vyasadev needed, Vyasadev himself felt dissatisfied. And then Narada Muni came at the same time. And even that relationship, I find it significant that it’s not that Narada Muni came and instructed.
It was like Vyasadev got the realization of the insight and Narada Muni confirmed it. So in a sense, the sense of agency is much more with Vyasadev than with Narada Muni. So you are saying that that’s an example of a long-term relationship? Yes.
Okay. Yes. The whole Bhagavatam is born out of the Guru-Shishya relationship.
Okay. So what wonderful things can come out of such a relationship? And going back to my point of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, so you’re saying that they are not exactly depicting the highest bhakti truths. They may be depicting more of like sociological realities, which are at a more of a functional level rather than a transcendental level.
That’s right. Okay. That’s right.
And Jiva Goswami talks about the Mahabharata as being not the highest scripture and of course is promoting the ultimate power and position of the Bhagavata Purana. Okay. Yeah.
So then that means and this also resonates with the idea that the Bhagavatam says even in the past, devotion was not that common. When great devotees were not that common, like it says that even among thousands of enlightened souls, those who are devoted to the Lord are rare. That’s right.
Very rare. But then we could say that going back to the earlier categorization of say teachers in general society and teachers of divinity. So we could say that the priests are not exactly teachers of general society, but they’re not entirely teachers of divinity.
They are, what is represented over there are something like, they are providing, we could say religious services, but they’re not exactly taking people to God. They’re just like, what would you say? They’re providing access to God so that people can solve their problems. Right, right.
Yeah, yeah. Okay. Makes sense.
Yeah. So then. So different teachers can take you to different levels, you know? Yeah.
A Kanishka guru can only take you as high as their level of understanding. Yes. And a Madhyama guru can take you as high as their Madhyama understanding.
Again, this is true in mundane academic world. You don’t have to have a PhD to teach grade school. That’s a very advanced, that’s the most advanced degree.
You can have a BA and teach grade school. If you want to teach high school, you should have an MA. Community college, MA.
But university teaching, you should have PhD. So that’s the uttama degree, the ultimate uttama degree in the academic setting. And then among all types of knowledge, what is the uttama subject? The Supreme Lord.
Krishna Bhakti Tattva. Krishna Bhakti Tattva. Yeah.
And Prabhupada says, one who is qualified to be guru is someone who knows Krishna Tattva. Okay. There it is.
That’s right there. That’s right. So now just, I accept your principle of there being a relationship with Narada and Vyasa.
But still, you know, somehow the way the spiritual master and the disciple, we see it, is it not that Narada Muni, Vyasadev is in every stage of his life consulting Narada Muni. Even when Narada Muni is present, Vyasadev is a person his own right. And he is giving guidance.
So somehow the sense of dependence on the spiritual master, was it more like a inner sentiment rather than a like a functional reality? Because we have Vishwamitra Prabhupada would quote Vishwamitra Thakur, S.A. Prasadad Bhagwat Prasado, the spiritual master of mercy. Now that is true. At the same time, Vishwamitra Thakur himself, in his commentaries, hardly ever mentions his spiritual master.
So in the first verse of the Bhagavatam commentary, he refers to his various teachers. But it’s not that he hardly ever quotes his spiritual master. So he is sharing his own realizations.
And similarly, Baldevidya Bhushan, who our tradition considers to be the disciple of Vishwamitra Thakur. Now there are specifics about it. Baldevidya Bhushan, he’s commenting on the same book as Vishwamitra Thakur has.
And he doesn’t refer to Vishwamitra Thakur’s commentary at all. So last time when you had mentioned about whether the incident about you writing on the Bhagavata and somebody questioning. So I remember that incident.
So there are precedents for that also in our tradition. So why I’m asking this is that somehow I feel that the sense of the way the guru-disciple relationship is at least conceived is a sense of like total dependency and servility towards the spiritual master, not just in emotion, but not just a sentiment, but in functionality. And I find that problematic because in a practical sense, for the disciples today, the spiritual master is not accessible.
And then sometimes the spiritual master themselves don’t know enough about the disciples. So I would go to the functional aspect later. But in principle itself, is this idea of dependence on the spiritual master more a mood of bhava or is it like, do we see in scripture that every walk of one’s life, one is actually taking guidance from the spiritual master? Where does one see an example like that at all in scripture? In the Chaitanya Charita Marita, one sees greater closeness to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu with some of the devotees, but other devotees are closer to people who are close to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
Um, uh, you know, Maharaj Parikshit, I’m sorry. Thank you. Um, King Pratap Rudra, you know, became, he was very close to Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya.
And the fact it was Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya that gave him access to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, but that was for a very short time. Yes. Mainly, he kept in touch with Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya.
Now, you know, exactly whose guru is who and whose disciple is whose and so on, you know, the guru-shishya relationship most fundamentally is extremely personal and private. If it is to be made known to others, then that’s fine. So, you know, one, a very advanced Vaishnava in our movement, old devotee, very close to Prabhupada, um, was interested in reading my Bhagavad Gita.
And he said, I hope you mentioned Prabhupada all over your Gita. I said, no, I don’t. And he said, but why wouldn’t you? I mean, we’re here, we’re Prabhupada Nugas.
I said, yes, but we are Prabhupada Nugas in substance. We don’t have to be putting out advertisements for Prabhupada. He doesn’t need to be advertised.
His teachings are the potency. This is not a personality cult. This is a teaching culture.
It’s the teachings that are the focus. This is why when I get, I tell my disciples, I don’t want the focus to be on me as a person. I want you to focus on what I teach.
That you can glorify, you know, keep your glorifications of me to yourself. That’s what I tell them. You, that you keep that to yourself.
I don’t, I don’t want to hear it. But glorifications of the teachings of Krishna Bhakti, we all do together. This is just my preference.
And that’s what I do. That makes sense. So I think there’s a word.
Yeah, it’s substance, Chaitanya Charanjee, you know, substance. That’s true. I think that you will also in one of his verses say that one’s mantra, one’s guru, go by it.
One should keep it secret. Yes. So here we go.
Yeah, so that could also explain why in the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, maybe that is a very personal relationship and they might have added, but might not be mentioned. It’s not always disclosed. I mean, Chaitanya Charanjee, how much do you actually know about my father, my birth father? I don’t ever talk to you about my birth father.
Now, I could talk to you about my birth father and his influence in my life as well as my mother after all, Prabhupada says the parents are the first guru. Yeah. The parents are the first guru.
See, these relationships are not always disclosed. And it’s up to the individual. Some people, you know, they’ll say, well, you know, who is your guru? They’ll ask me.
I said, why do you want to know? Then, you know, once they find out Prabhupada Shishya, you know, oh, Prabhupada Shishya. Oh, okay. Now, yes, of course, but every devotee is to be respected and appreciated.
But just because someone got initiated by Prabhupada doesn’t automatically or shouldn’t automatically elevate that devotee to a status. There are many that got initiated by Prabhupada who have gone away. They don’t live a life with Prabhupada’s instructions.
Yes. And now going back to your earlier point about have you quoted Prabhupada everywhere? Yes. I’ve seen that sometimes we tend to say hide behind Prabhupada.
Yes. And we discussed that also last time, like last time you said that while explaining why you wrote your Bhagavad Gita, you didn’t immediately jump to Prabhupada. I told Prabhupada I wanted to write.
So I have seen maybe it also is a matter of culture because I’ve seen that in some circles, quoting scripture provides authority. But in some circles, at least in some Indian circles, quoting scripture seems to provide authority. But in Western audiences, I’ve seen that it really doesn’t matter much.
And to some extent, it may also seem that means you are just throwing the party line. Affectatious. Right.
Affectatious. Affectatious. Yes.
I’ve seen several, say, biblical Christian authors and Christian websites where the whole website is dedicated to Bible teachings, but there are hardly any explicit quotes from the Bible. And I think that’s what the, say, the postmodern mind will accept, because it accepts the argument on its merit, not on its source. Yeah.
To some extent. That’s right. Beautifully put, Chetan and Sharanji.
Yes. I think that is a very astute observation. So what you’re saying is that for all of us, the guru-disciple relationship should be that which nourishes us so that we, in a sense, not in an arrogant sense, but we become meritorious.
Yes. Not that we have to say that because I am this person’s disciple, therefore I have authority, but rather what we speak, if it has merit, then it has natural authority. Exactly.
Okay. The power is in the teaching, not in the institutional investment. Okay.
Not in the endless number of disciples. It’s the substance. What kind of relationship is there? Look, Chetan and Sharanji, honestly, I never thought, I never even conceived when I first became a disciple of Srila Prabhupada.
I never even dreamt about getting several higher degrees from Harvard and getting my PhD from Harvard. That’s Prabhupada. And once I got done with that, I said, well, okay, now what? Well, then I never dreamt that publishers like Princeton and Yale and Oxford would be chasing me for publication.
That’s Krishna. That’s Prabhupada. And then I never dreamt that I would be asked over and over and over to speak at the Smithsonian.
That’s Guru Krishna. I mean, this is unimaginable. If you had told me, you know, 40 years ago, 30 years ago, Garuda, I’ve got a crystal ball here, and you will be chased down by these publishers, these institutions for speaking these, you know, I would have laughed in your face.
I said, Chetan and Sharan, your crystal ball is nuts. I know. It’s inconceivable.
All of this is due to the blessings of Guru and Krishna. So this is where we submit. This is where we submit ourselves so lovingly and receptively.
I want to stay away from words like submissively, surrendered. I mean, these are overused terms, but lovingly and receptively, full reception. That’s what we mean by surrender and submissive.
Receptive, yeah. Then magical things happen. Magical things happen.
So if I understand right, what you are saying is that the substance of the spiritual master disciple relationship is seen in how the disciple teaches and then where the teaching reaches. Yes. So we can also say that in the case of Prabhupada, now Prabhupada was not like constantly with his spiritual master and Prabhupada was taking his business decisions to relocate from say Calcutta to Mumbai or to Allahabad.
He was not really consulting his spiritual master. He was his own person, but he was hearing and he was reading and he was trying to assist wherever he was. So it was a more connection of the heart.
Yes. And the proof that the connection was deep was that eventually Bhaktivedanta’s teachings manifested through Prabhupada in a miraculous way. And the same principle, say, you’re saying is going down and now you have reached places where you couldn’t have conceived in the past.
That’s right. And I wasn’t one of those devotees. You know, there’s some Prabhupada shishas that barely saw Prabhupada or never saw Prabhupada, but they were initiated.
Right. And then there are some devotees on the other end who were with Prabhupada constantly as a secretary or, you know, working with Prabhupada in different projects. And I wasn’t there either.
I was in the middle. I was in the middle group where I went on many morning walks with Prabhupada. I sat in Prabhupada’s room for hours, different occasions, just literally at his desk.
You know, he would be at his desk and I’d be at one end of the desk. You know, I got to see Prabhupada for hours. I would just listen.
I would take it all in, you know. But then I had the good fortune only because Satsvarupa pushed me to send my master’s thesis on the Chaitanya Charita Amrita to Prabhupada. I didn’t want to because I didn’t want to bother Srila Prabhupada.
But he pushed me, pushed me, kept pushing me, pushing me. And so finally, I did send it. And he was very pleased as he was reading through the pages of my thesis.
I mean, Prabhupada right then could have said, tell him to stop. He has no right to write about this. He is not pure devotee yet.
He is not qualified to write this. He is not, you know, he is writing. You know, I have said in my books that one has to be a pure devotee to write about Krishna.
He could have said, stop him. He didn’t say. He said just the opposite.
So this is the grace of the guru. When the guru is pleased. This lights up one’s whole life.
Yeah. Now, when the guru departs. Yeah.
Typically, the guru has disciples who are younger than him or her, right? Yeah. When the guru departs, this is hopefully a time when the when the disciple can rise to the Madhyama and even Uttama levels of perceiving guru’s guidance. OK.
The presence of guru is more than just an embodiment, but a trans embodiment. Beautiful. Is that a word you’re calling trans embodiment? When you get a PhD, you can coin your own words, too.
That’s a license. PhD means you have a license to create neologisms. Oh, OK.
New words. Yeah. So, yes, I just I just created that word.
Oh, I thought you had already used it somewhere. Oh, no, I just created out of inspiration in my talking with you. So there’s embodiment being in a body, but then there’s trans embodiment.
It’s a word that makes sense. There’s both. There’s both at the same time when it comes to guru.
That’s why we have Appu and Vani. And Prabhupada always say that the Vani is more important than the Appu. That’s correct.
Exactly. So there’s in that trans embodiment of the Vani, there is ironically, paradoxically, embodiment. Hmm.
So when you are looking at Prabhupada’s Bhagavad Gita, when you’re looking at Prabhupada’s Gita, this is an embodiment. There’s a physicality to this book. That’s why I don’t put anything on top of it.
I don’t do that. Nothing goes on top. It’s a holy book.
It’s a sacred book. So ironically, the Vani is the trans embodiment manifestation of the guru and Krishna, but it in itself becomes another kind of embodiment. So there’s this dialectical movement all the time between embodiment and trans embodiment.
Okay. And if you consider from the guru-disciple relationship point of view, you talk about those three situations, those who never had association with Prabhupada, those who had constant association and those who had some association. So we could say that irrespective of the specifics of how much association one has, the principle is that one needs to connect with the spiritual master and then the spiritual master’s mercy manifests through the disciple.
So to the disciple and through the disciple. Yes. Now, even in Prabhupada’s life, we see that the early days, maybe till 1970s, he was able to give personal guidance to most devotees who came at that time.
And afterwards, as the movement spread, he was not that accessible for various reasons. Too many devotees were there. He was traveling across the world.
He also was focusing on writing his books, so many things. So now, in today’s world, in our movement, the spiritual master and disciple, sometimes they barely get to meet each other once a year or sometimes they don’t even meet each other. So there are two different aspects to this.
I talked about earlier the mood of this, the sentiment or the mood of dependence on the spiritual master. And the second is the functional reality, functionality of, say, taking responsibility, taking guidance. And once I’m taking responsibility, I’m taking guidance also and moving on.
Yes. So I find that for many devotees, the initiation is a very important marker of growth in spiritual life. But whether it actually becomes a marker of a personal relationship, that is something which is open to question.
And I wouldn’t put it that it’s any one person’s fault because often the spiritual masters themselves are genuinely having so many obligations. And the disciples themselves would like to, but they don’t have access. Now, from what I remember reading Chaitanya Charita Amrit, Prabhupada also says that there were two kinds of spiritual masters.
There were some who were like traveling sannyasis who would initiate and they would leave. And he gives the example of, I think, Advaita Acharya being initiated by Madhavendra Puri. And so he just lived on Advaita Acharya.
Then he met Ishwara Puri and he said, this is my godbrother. He was delighted by that. So and then others are more like, look, there were people who were the priests of the temples.
Yes. And they were grahasthas and they would give initiation. Yes.
And then they were the people who would probably name their babies and perform their weddings and they had a more direct role in their lives. Yeah. So to some extent in our movement, the guru standard has become a little bit more like Madhavendra Puri and Advaita Acharya, where the spiritual master gives initiation and then is not available so much.
So there is precedent in the tradition for that also. But one major difference we could say is in the time of Advaita Acharya, there was a very supportive Vaishnav culture where people could get nourishment. But in today’s world, that may not be there in many parts of the world.
So am I on the right track in analyzing? I mean, I’m trying to see how we are today and what was there in the past and how devotees can move forward. Yes, I like what you said. I think you make excellent observations here.
The difference, of course, now is the overlay of the institutional structure that tries to adjudicate relationships. OK. And that overlay of structure should not impose upon those relationships, but rather should bless and recognize those relationships.
OK. There’s a difference. So one very close friend of mine who is a GBC fellow, a wonderful devotee.
I’m very close with him. He explained to me, he said, you know, you went to school, you got qualified to be a professor, you got a PhD from Harvard, and now you’re a professor. So we do that in this con.
We want people to be qualified to be guru. So we have some training and we give them, in some sense, a degree. You know, the PhD.
I said, you know, that’s not a really good example. It’s not a really good example. So, of course, we were talking earlier about the universality of the teacher and so on.
What they’re actually trained to do. If guru, if we are truly guru, then we know Krishna Tattva, right? As it’s stated in the Chaitanya Charita Mitra. You quoted the verse earlier.
So to know Krishna Tattva, it can be understood in various ways. Prabhupada, in some places, said the guru must know Shatdarshana, you know, Shatdarshana. He or she must be aware of Vaisheshika, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Purva Mimamsa, Uttara Mimamsa, Yoga, Sankhya.
I mean, how many devotees know these schools? You know, sometimes I think that, sorry, just to go back to that point. Sometimes I think that, that is, in one level, do all gurus need to know those six systems of philosophy? Or do all gurus need to be equipped to present Bhakti wisdom in the light of whatever philosophies are present in their cultural context? For the six systems of philosophy, I don’t really have much of an influence even in India. Yeah.
If you say, in today’s world, if you want to present, probably we need to have awareness of postmodernism and say sociopolitical communism, capitalism and so many other isms. So is it more awareness of what is needed to present Bhakti wisdom in the contemporary world? I don’t see, even if some devotees wanted to, and they spend years studying the Shatdarshanas, now how is that actually going to help them better represent Krishna’s message in today’s world? Excellent question. First of all, again, I agree with you.
But I would say both things are important. Both meaning the ancient classical Indian systems of philosophy and modern thought. If you’re addressing a more public audience, then you need to be more aware of things like SPNL, you know, no, no.
Spiritual but not religious. Right. Right.
SPNR, right. Spiritual but not religious. If you’re going to be teaching to a more intellectually empowered audience, like the Smithsonian, you need to be aware of critical thought.
You need to be aware of modern thinking. But you also need the tools of ancient philosophy. You know, when I was at the University of Chicago, I know devotees now have this buzzword hermeneutics.
Well, I was trained in philosophical hermeneutics back in 1970s. I had the world’s most famous philosopher in modern philosophical hermeneutics as a professor of mine. Oh, who was that? In fact, this is Paul Ricoeur, a French professor at the University of Paris or Sorbonne.
He was flown in from Paris to Chicago on one of those those jets that could fly three hours between the two continents. I forgot what they’re called. But anyway, they discontinued those jets for some reason.
I’m not sure why. But anyway, they used to fly for three hours and they’re costly. But University of Chicago would fly him over to teach the class.
He was so powerful a thinker that even though you’re already registered and you’re in the university, you have to apply and state the reason why you want to take the course, because hundreds of people, students, doctoral students, wanted to take the course with him and only 30 could take it. Well, I got into that course and for Paul Ricoeur, I wrote a paper on ancient Indian hermeneutics. Called Mimangsa.
I showed him methods of interpretation. Embedded in Indian culture that he knew nothing about. He was fascinated.
And he gave me an A. How about them apples? That is the 1970s, isn’t it? When was this? 1976 or seven. Yeah, six, six. That’s remarkable.
And it was those tools that helped me gain an understanding for critiquing the critics of the Chaitanya Charita Mrita for my thesis. And that was the thesis that went to Srila Prabhupada. So both traditions.
It’s about going deep into our the Darshana Chaitanya Charita is in one sense, nothing but a toolbox. Look, I have a toolbox in the garage, OK? I mean, I’m not the best, you know, hairy homeowner, OK? You know, I, you know, you can’t imagine me building much or, you know, fixing much, right? But I’ve got the basic wrench set, the hammer, you know, screwdrivers, you know, the Phillips or the straight head or the I even have a drill. Are you impressed? I mean, you’re not too impressed.
OK, well, whatever. I think you’re having a hard time imagining me with the drill and doing. Yeah, OK, fine.
I’ll grant you that. But occasionally I’ve really gotten, you know, up on the walls and the ceilings to do some drilling and whatnot. OK, now those are the tools.
Now, are they up here in the house now? No, they’re there when I need them. So to be able to utilize Sankhya Darshana, Nyaya Darshana, Vaisheshika Darshana, Purva Mimamsa Darshana, Uttara Mimamsa, which is Vedanta Darshana, Yoga Darshana, to be able to utilize these things can be very powerful. But if you’re not involved at that level of preaching or teaching, then fine.
But Prabhupada in one place says that Guru knows the Shad Darshanas. Hmm. Knows is kind of an interesting word.
At least know what’s in your toolbox. When you need a screwdriver, it’s really handy. Instead of trying to use a coin or something, your fingers, right? Sometimes I see devotees without the toolbox, and frankly, it looks pretty bad to me from where I’m sitting.
So you’re saying that they’re trying to make arguments or defend without actually knowing how to do it. Yes. And yeah.
In either the modern Western thought or the ancient Indian. You know, Prabhupada said, preach according to your realization. Now, this is an interesting thing.
Guru, we get the teachings from Guru as Shishas. But Prabhupada, you know, the issue of imitation is tricky. If we imitate the Guru, this isn’t good.
Anukara. Anukara, imitation. If we act the way the spiritual master acts and we copy, we imitate.
This is disingenuous. But if we follow, if we enter into the flow of teachings, anusara, right? Follow the flow is literally what that word means, right? Anu, follow, sara, flow. Then we speak what we really know.
I’ve always taught, when I’ve taught teachers, I’ve always taught them something that sounds a little funny and sounds obvious. I tell teachers, don’t teach what you don’t know. Teach what you truly know, what you have realized.
If you don’t know something that someone inquires about, know enough to say, I don’t know much about that. I will have to get back to you and inquire about that. Don’t pretend like you know everything.
Sarvajna, you know, my Guru is Sarvajna. No, no, that’s Krishna. I am Sarvajna or my Guru is Sarvajna.
Because you’re saying don’t teach what you don’t know. I mean, they’re two different things, aren’t they? Right. In other words, don’t act as if you have Sarvajna, you know.
I think nobody is Sarvajna that way, in a sense. No one is Sarvajna except Krishna. Yeah.
Who can be Sarvajna? Now, what is powerful about Guru, and the Yoga Sutra talks about this, and I’m very involved right now in my publication of that book, but the Guru being connected so intimately to the Parampara, the Guru Parampara, and the Guru Parampara being so intimately connected to divinity, can miraculously extend something that looks like Sarvajna. It’s amazing. I mean, there are miracles to be had, but it’s not that it’s coming from us.
It’s coming from Krishna through us. So there’s the difference between instrumentality and embodiment. Instrumentality.
By himself, yeah, instrumentality versus embodiment. So Chaitanya Charan is a very precious individual for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration and affection. But even more than that, what comes through Chaitanya Charan, wow, or even what comes through Chaitanya Charan, despite Chaitanya Charan’s limitations, wow, powerful.
So there’s the specialness of Chaitanya Charan just in and of itself as a bhakta. But bhakta means a portion. I’m sharing.
I’m a shared portion of divinity. It’s really what a bhakta means. A bhakta means joining the spark, joining the fire again.
Oh, so you’re saying the spiritual master, the embodiment in the sense that they have their own specific individuality and personality and instrumentality means beyond their specific individuality, which also means limitation. But what comes through them in a sense goes beyond those limitations. Right.
His or her transbodiment is the instrument, the power of instrumentality. So there’s embodiment. And I’m going to keep using that word.
I like that transbodiment. I like that. It’s useful.
True. So in this way, we can understand. Now, I want to get back to a subject you broached earlier, which was the guru tattva is essential in everyone’s devotional life, whether one’s guru is living still, but not present, living, very present and intimately available or not living and transcendent, but still very available or not very good.
No matter what, it is the responsibility of the sincere disciple to always connect every day with the power of guru tattva. And there are various ways of doing this. Of course, the Guru Vashtakam, meditation on the Guru Vashtakam.
Right. And that’s why we recited every day. This is the way we connect to guru and also our relationships.
Those who guide us in our lives, our various shiksha gurus, we have guides, persons from whom we receive so much inspiration. So these are the ways. Guru tattva is absolutely essential in a devotee’s life.
And if one is feeling like, well, my guru is too busy, you know. OK, fine. No, no, no, no.
You know, just going back to your earlier level of Kanishta Madhyam Uttama. So if we have that in the disciples of the Kanishta level, then they will not be able to perceive the presence of the guru unless they are in the embodied presence of the guru. Yes, that is right.
As you move forward, then, you know, this is beautiful. So we could at the Madhyama level, there is some amount of discrimination. This is favorable.
This is not favorable. This is guru. This is not guru.
This is guru speaking to me through this person. This is not guru speaking to me through this person. Hmm.
And at the Uttama level, we will see the principle of guru acting everywhere. Guru is speaking to me through everything. At this point, guru and Krishna are merged.
Merge is a dangerous word. I know. I know.
Yeah. But you know how I mean it. I know how you mean it, but guru and Krishna are one.
To say guru and Krishna is one, you know, or guru is one. It’s also dangerous. But we know that the other side of oneness is variegatedness.
True. Yeah. So in a sense, if we consider the story of that, was it Bilwamang, not Bilwamangal Thakur? Yeah, in his previous life.
Yeah. So he had a guru. And then he was attracted to this Lakshahira, I think, Chintamani.
Chintamani. And then, so he, when she said, if you had this much devotion to your guru, if you had this much devotion to the Lord, you would be liberated instead of having this much attraction to my body, this body. So he felt it as his guru speaking through her.
Yes. So we could say that is the expanded level of perceiving the guru. Yes.
It may not necessarily be directly the guru was aware and guru was speaking through it. It is when you say guru and Krishna have become one. That means Krishna speaks and it is non-different from the guru’s voice.
So. Yes. And as any teacher of Krishna Bhakti knows, at times you will speak things that you didn’t even know that you knew.
True. Right? I mean, look, I think about this stuff all the time. And today this word transbodiment came up.
Yeah. I was thinking previously, how can I explain the opposite of embodiment? I can’t say disembodiment. Because that sounds like, you know, postmortem, you know, sort of a state of some kind.
That’s true. It’s about transbodiment. So in our katha, in our bodhiyanta parasparam that you mentioned, right? Transbodiment, the word I’ve been looking for, emerged.
Amazing. It’s my pleasure to be a small catalyst for that. You are my teacher.
You are my teacher. You see, I came up with that in our katha. Kathiyanta cha mam nityam.
Yes. Tushyanti cha ramanti cha. So pleasurable.
So, you know, satiated. Thank you. So, you know, this is so stimulating.
Maybe I’ll come up with some word in future also. We shall see. That’s right.
Yeah, but this is, I also like the word transbodiment because it does convey, I also like this word, you know, Krishna is not just personal. I started using the word transpersonal. Because there’s personal, impersonal and Krishna is not just a person in our sense.
He’s actually a person beyond our idea of personality. Yes. So, but I never thought of transbodiment.
That also conveys a lot about how Krishna is in this world and still Krishna is beyond this world. Now, when Krishna is in this world also. So he is, he’s on Arjuna’s chariot, but in the whole chariot and the battlefield is in him.
So that’s, that’s a transbodiment. Yeah, it’s a very. There’s a divine, there’s a divine embodiment and a divine transbodiment.
Yes, true. Yeah. So I think this, you know, we could go, we thought we’ll discuss various issues about the spiritual master.
And we did cover a lot of things. We discussed about the scriptural basis. And then we talked also about the institution.
And I started that most important part was the availability for the disciple. Because in one sense, it feels that the disciple feels that it is, my whole spiritual life depends on my spiritual master. Without the spiritual master’s mercy, I can do nothing.
Yes. But then unfortunately, my spiritual master is so busy that I don’t have much access to the spiritual master. Now, of course, I can have access to other, to the, maybe the senior disciple or spiritual master or other teachers who are in harmony with that mood.
So to some extent, as devotees, even as disciples, we will need to rise beyond that Kanishka level, at least to the Madhyama level. Otherwise, we will always feel even while being in a spiritual institution, we may feel spiritually malnourished. And so maybe this is where I would like to maybe take this last point about, I mentioned about responsibility and obedience.
You said you don’t like the word surrender. And so those are overused words. Submission.
Submission. Surrender and submissiveness. Yeah.
So, somehow, I sometimes find that while obeying the spiritual master is important, with the no denying that, but at the same time, sometimes that if the principle of obedience is overemphasized, then that creates maybe an unhealthy kind of dependence where one doesn’t take initiative and responsibility. So I should obey instructions. But what if I’m in a situation where there’s no one to give me instructions or there’s no one mature enough to understand me and give me instructions? Yes.
Did I ever tell you about my experience on Facebook where I got a friend request from a very nice brahmachari and I noticed that in his main picture, there was a picture of someone who looked exactly like Radhanath Swami. And so I wrote back to the brahmachari. I said, I’m happy to accept your friend request.
You look exactly like my friend Radhanath Swami. Are you related? Now, of course, I was kidding. He put a picture of Radhanath Swami in the place where you’re supposed to put your own face.
It’s called Facebook. It doesn’t mean someone else’s face. It means your face.
So I was kind of, he wrote back. He said, oh no, Garuda Prabhu said, this is not my face. This is Radhanath Swami’s face.
I said, oh, wait a minute. Is this your Facebook page or is this his Facebook page? He said, well, it’s my Facebook page. But when they don’t, when people look at my face, they will make no advancement whatsoever.
But if they look at his face, they will make advancement. I wrote back saying, do you think Radhanath Swami, your guru, is so weak that he can’t empower your face? Beautifully turned his argument around on him. Exactly.
I said, where is your faith? He said, oh, I said, people are expecting your face, not someone else’s face. I explained all this to him and he said, oh, okay. Thank you so much.
Months later, no change. Radhanath Swami. So that’s Kanishka.
And I don’t think he will think he’s being Kanishka. He’s thinking, actually, I’m being extremely humble. That’s right.
And you know what? That’s Kanishka humility. Really? You can have Kanishka humility also? Yes, you can, certainly. Yeah.
Fascinating. Yeah. Yeah.
You know, sometimes, again, no offense, but I just thought of this, that sometimes it happens that some devotees, they give class, but they say, I’m not qualified to sit in the Vyasasana. So. Whenever I hear that, I ask them to get off the Vyasasana.
No, so they sit down and give a class. I said, please remove yourself if you’re not qualified. If they say that in front of me, I’m obnoxious enough to say, oh, you’re not qualified to sit on the seat of Vyasa, then please get off.
You see, humility. Involves honesty and vulnerability. I am, you know, I’m humbled by being asked to give this class and to sit on the seat of Vyasa.
I strive to rise to meet just a modicum of the expectations of one who sits here. But to say, I’m not qualified. First of all, are you qualified to know whether you’re qualified or not? How do you know you’re not qualified? Who are you to judge that? You see, there’s something extremely unhumble about saying, I am not qualified to sit here.
I said, wait a second. Isn’t that the guru’s job? That’s not your job. You see how these statements backfire? This is powerful.
It’s amazing. It’s like, sometimes we might be here, sometimes we might be here, sorry, go ahead. I have to interrupt you because I remembering a conversation that Prabhupada had right in front of me with a professor.
He said, the professor said, Maharaj, I’m, he was an Indian gentleman. So he spoke with Indian accent. He said, Maharaj, I teach Hinduism in the college and I have no idea what is Hinduism.
Prabhupada sort of perked up and said, how you can teach something that you know nothing about? Now you see what was happening is his false humility was catching up to him. You know, it’s like if I were to come on here and say, Chaitanya Charanji, you want me to speak about guru? I know nothing about guru. I am not qualified to speak about guru.
Now, what does that leave you? I mean, what are you going to do for the next hour or so? Right. It doesn’t make sense. That is not a kata starter.
It’s a kata ender. So Prabhupada was so furious with this professor. I’d never seen Prabhupada so, it was scary.
Prabhupada was so, it was building up, it was escalating. Prabhupada became, he then turned to Sarup Damodar, who was sitting at the opposite end of Prabhupada’s desk from me. Okay.
So there was Prabhupada in the middle, right? Myself and Sarup Damodar on the other end. And so Prabhupada turned to Sarup Damodar and said, here’s our PhD. What do you think? Oh, God.
Oh, my God. I can remember this. So vividly Chetan Charanjee.
So Sarup Damodar never said the word Prabhupada with that pronunciation. He would always go, Prabhupada, Prabhupada. He said, Prabhupada, I think he is rascal.
Oh, my God. So Prabhupada turned to this professor and said, so there is a verdict. You’re a rascal.
You’re speaking about something about which you know nothing. Anyway, Prabhupada was so angry, his lips were quivering. I never saw Prabhupada in this, never.
And Brahmananda asked him to leave. He escorted him out. Wow.
We were all like, I mean, we just, everyone was so quiet after that. And then Prabhupada asked Ravindra Sarup, so why did you invite him? Don’t invite people to speak to the guru who are not receptive. It is our job as bhaktas, as teachers, as gurus to gauge receptivity.
This is so key in teaching. Yeah, I think what happens is that without, if you don’t gauge the receptivity, it is basically we, sometimes for some devote, some, some devotees, it’s preaching like is one formula which you repeat everywhere. And then it’s not like one size fit all, at all.
You know, it is, it backfires quite badly. That’s Kanishka. That’s right.
That’s Kanishka. Okay. Kanishka is not sensitive to receptivity.
Okay. So I’m really appreciating the breadth of these conceptions. So that if we consider Kanishka as seeing God only in the deity, that means seeing the service only in the ritual or seeing the preaching only in that formula.
Anything outside it, that’s not preaching. Got it. That’s right.
That’s true. So very formulaic, very formulaic. Yes, Prabhupada also used the word formulas.
I think somewhere Prabhupada also translate the Sarva Dharma and Pratyajya as going beyond all religious formulas or religious formularies. Yeah, very interesting. Very interesting.
So I’m just going back to your earlier point about this is a very good example of say false humility backfiring. So sometimes, you know, humility can also be worn as a badge of pride. So where it is not that I’m humble, but I want to show how humble I am.
I’m wanting to show something to get appreciation for it is actually pride. Yeah. You know that I don’t know whether this is true or not, but it’s gone around the movement for years.
A devotee coming up to Prabhupada saying, Prabhupada, Prabhupada, I am the most fallen. And Prabhupada quipping back, you’re not the most anything. That’s true.
You see, you can’t. It’s not honest. He doesn’t know whether he’s most superlative.
It’s using a superlative. It’s not honest. State what you really, truly, genuinely understand as your position.
It’s about honesty. It’s not about affect. Oh, Chaitanya Charanji, you have asked me to speak about Guru.
I know nothing about Guru. I know nothing. How can I know what is Guru? Guru is so great, and I am nothing.
Go ask your own Guru what is Guru. Don’t ask me. I mean, right.
It’s a genuine bodhiyanta paraspuram. Bodhiyanta is a causative verb in Sanskrit. It means I cause you to be enlightened.
And you cause me to be enlightened. That’s the paraspuram, the dialectical movement, the interpersonal dialectical movement of Kata. And that’s why I enjoy your invitations to speak with you.
Yes, it’s very relishable. I look forward to our meetings enormously. So I would say from this perspective, what you are saying is that for there to be reciprocation, the disciple also has to take responsibility.
The name of humility says that I am so fallen, I can’t do anything. So it’s not just being humble, but taking responsibility to carry forward the mission of the spiritual master. Maybe we could say initially it begins with obeying the instructions.
And afterward, one understands the mission. And even if one doesn’t have a particular instruction, one will find out how to follow the mission. You know, Prabhupada was told to go to the Western world.
But Prabhupada was not told specifically America. At that time for India, it was Bhaksansura Raku disciples had gone to UK. But Prabhupada decided to come to America.
So in a sense, the following instruction, if it leads to fostering a sense of mission, then one will find in not exactly in an independent sense, but in a responsible sense, one’s own way to move forward. So in the way you have done it now, you got that instruction that you got the encouragement for your PhD thesis, but then exactly which area to go and how you told me last time about how earlier about how you enter the Ras Leela and you become that area. So I think Prabhupada also talks about it, but it’s not emphasized so much.
In the Nectar of Instruction introduction, Prabhupada says, once you come to the mode of goodness, how to advance further will be revealed from within, will be revealed, Prabhupada says. So that means in today’s situation within the movement, sometimes aspiring devotees or disciples may or may not have sufficient access to the spiritual master. So rather than say lamenting about that, at one level, we discussed from an institutional perspective, how much of it is traditional, how much of it is not traditional.
And that will have to be resolved by discussing and at that level. But at the level of a devotee, we could say that the devotees need to take responsibility for growing. And if they can’t have access to their spiritual master, then wherever they find some teacher whose mood is harmonious with the spiritual master, they take guidance, they take inspiration from them.
And then they take the responsibility for going in their spiritual life. Yes. And the corollary to this is that the spiritual master has to take responsibility for the disciple.
Yes. He or she has to be. Now, you know, if they’re the types that collects thousands of disciples, well, somewhere in there, there’s some kind of responsibility.
Personally, I can’t speak to that. I don’t have the experience of having thousands of disciples. I have several.
You know, I’m going to keep this, keep it small. Is it that way? I can train my disciples. I don’t necessarily trust anyone to train my disciples the way I want them to be trained.
So. So that there is a I mean, you say you don’t trust anyone. There is if if somebody is taking the responsibility of discipleship, there is also a sense of protect, protectiveness that has to be there.
Well, at least it is with me. I can’t speak for my God brothers who again. Of course.
I can’t speak because I don’t have that experience. I don’t have that level of responsibility. My responsibility is to be a teacher, is to dive into the substance of Krishna Bhakti theology, perhaps in ways that no one else does.
That’s my responsibility. And my responsibility then is to transmit this to my students. Whether it be doctoral students over at GTU in Berkeley, or whether and that’s a more formal academic setting, or if it’s to my disciples as bhaktas, then I need them to understand these principles of Krishna Bhakti that I don’t find so prevalently understood.
Frankly, among many of my God brothers and God sisters. Yeah. So I want them to genuinely understand what I’ve understood, and then they will be eventually be able to teach.
True. So I was talking about the protectiveness, not in the sense of saying that the spiritual masters with many disciples are not having that, but practically probably they create some systems by which they may have some senior disciples who train or something like that. That sense of responsibility has to go both ways.
But at the same time, like say you are speaking from the spiritual master’s perspective. I was speaking more from the disciple’s perspective that the disciple cannot say, wait for the spiritual master to give an instruction. Right.
We have to also take it. Go get it. Get it.
Go get it. That’s right. It’s not a passive thing.
It’s an active thing. Right. It’s a go get it attitude.
That’s right. We need it in spiritual life also to some extent. Prabhupada had that.
That’s right. Go get it. That’s right.
Yeah. Prabhupada created the whole framework for outreach and nothing when he came to America. Yeah.
So if we, like you earlier said that we celebrate Vyasa Puja as the Guru Purnima because Vyasa Dev is the ideal disciple. Yes. The Guru is the ideal disciple also.
So we can say if we look at Prabhupada’s example, Prabhupada himself didn’t embody in any way like passive dependence. Prabhupada was very active initiative to, yes, in principle, he was carrying out a spiritual master’s instruction, but then he’s doing so much, which was based on his initiative, his inspiration, the opportunities that he saw around him. And then, yes, true.
So Prabhupada also says that we have to fly our own plane. Yes, indeed. So yes, true.
I think this is a very practical as well as encouraging note to say bring this talk on the Guru to a conclusion. I think the institutional aspect is, it will have to evolve on its own. And maybe we could have a separate discussion on the broader intersection of institution and spirituality, how that works out traditionally.
Would love to talk about that. Yes, true. So are there any concluding points you want to say? Or should I try to summarize and then you would like to add something? I’ve said, I think, plenty today.
And we can always go into, you know, specialized discussions if you want. Yeah, it’s up to you. Yeah, thank you.
So I’ll try to summarize the topic of Vyasa, how it emerged was, we could probably say the Guru as a relationship. That was your theme. So we could see the appreciating the Guru as a relationship.
I don’t know whether that could be a title, but broadly that was a theme. That when I started talking about various aspects, you said foundationally, Guru, it’s like a father. You know that you cannot have a father without having a son or having children.
And Guru, we also use the word tattvatah, use the knowledge tattva. Tattva is thatness. That is, so there is a universal reality of them being teachers.
And there is a specific reality of the supreme divinity being taught, which is an unlimited reality. And then we talked about the Guru also being at the, either the Guru is teaching at the Kanishta Madhyam Uttama level, like Prabhupada did initially with Bhagavad Gita and then went on to Bhagavatam and CC. Or the Guru themselves might be at the Kanishta Madhyam Uttama and then their disciples will go up to that level.
And then later on, I’ll just bring that point here that the disciples can also be at the Kanishta Madhyam Uttama. And so then we talked about the institution, say, whether the institution and the relationship, how they would interact. So if the institution adjudicates the relationship, then it may interfere with the organic growth of the relationship.
So there could be some level of, like in marriages, there could be some level of certification or whatever from the state or the church. But the key thing, the substance is the relationship between the couple. Similarly, the substance has to be the relationship between the Guru and the disciple.
And then if there is some way, whether there is an authorization or what you said, there’s more of a blessing from the institution or for some other teachers, some seniors, that is something which will have to be worked out. But when the institution becomes too prominent, institutional aspect, then maybe the relationship gets impeded. And then we discussed about the scriptural foundation.
So when I mentioned that Mahabharata Ramayana doesn’t have the kind of personal Guru-disciple relationship. So you mentioned that that is, the Bhagavatam is what is teaching directly bhakti. And we can look at the Vyasadeva and Narada Muni relationship.
And Vyasadeva does get insight and get confirmation for Narada Muni. And the whole Bhagavatam emerges from that. And the Guru is to be kept confidential.
So one, it’s a very, two things, private and it’s a personal relationship. It’s a private relationship. So, therefore, we don’t necessarily see this in our scriptures so much.
But at the same time, we do see different degrees of intimacy in Chaitanya Charita Amrit with Lord Chaitanya. Some of his close associates, somewhere like, second order associates, like Pratap Rudra, associate with Lord Chaitanya, Prime Minister Sarovam Bhattacharya. But the principle is that everybody had some relationships that helped them grow in their spiritual life.
So for Pratap Rudra, it might not be Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, it was Sarovam Bhattacharya. And even when, say there were Gurus like Madhavendra Puri who departed, but their disciples then had an environment where they had the relationship by which they could grow. So, then in that context of the relationship with the spiritual master, how do we know it is there? It is manifested through the mercy, through the transformation that happens.
Say, for example, you mentioned about, you would never have thought of all that you would be doing now. So, this crystal ball is nuts. I like that Americanism, but it has happened.
And so, the presence or the mercy of the spiritual master is seen in the potency. Not necessarily that we have to talk about Prabhupada all the time, but the teachings come through. And then that is what is critical.
Then we use the word, you talk about, coined the word trans-bodiment. So, there is the embodiment of the spiritual master. And then there is a trans-bodiment in the sense that the influence of the spiritual master extends beyond their physical presence.
And that’s why I talked about the instrumentality also. So, we are all finite beings, but the infinite can manifest through the finite. And then there is no limit to what can happen through that.
And then we also talked about the principle of how as devotees, when we are trying to practice bhakti, so if the devotees stay at a uttama level, or sorry, at a kanishta level, the disciples, and they will always see the spiritual master only in the embodiment. And then they’ll feel that I don’t have enough association. So, on one side, it is the spiritual master’s responsibility to protect and guide the disciples, according to if they have taken disciples.
But another side, if we consider the reality today, even Prabhupada, he, in the initial years, he could guide everyone personally. The later years, you said that Bhagavad Gita itself is an embodiment through which he is manifesting. So, to some extent, the devotees have to take responsibility to see their guru in whichever manifestations is accessible for them.
So, other teachers who might manifest their guru’s mood, so the shiksha gurus, we didn’t use that term specifically. But that way, the disciples take initiative. Then we can see Krishna at various places.
So, kanishta, you said that you see Krishna only at one place. Madhyama, we see this is guru, this is not guru. And at the uttama level, the guru and Krishna merge.
I was also tempted to use that dangerous word. So, in this way, if there is this understanding, we also talk about false humility. Prabhupada was so angry with the person who said, who was a professor, who was a Hindu scholar, he said, I don’t know Hinduism.
So, very striking point that if I say I’m not qualified, then that itself, I am taking the position of a guru. Because there is a guru’s position to decide whether I’m qualified or not, not my position. That claim of humility is actually not a claim statement.
What seems to be a statement of humility is actually not humility. It is pride. So, talking about how somebody is on their Facebook page putting their spiritual master’s face.
So, that is not… And we should be our own person and through our, through rather than say hiding behind the back of the spiritual master, through our merit, which we have got by the mercy of the spiritual master, we can, we share Krishna’s message. So, that way, if a disciple can see that, rather than thinking that I’m, rather than humility letting them come in the way of that reciprocation, so the disciple has to take the responsibility to gain the reciprocation, either through the spiritual master or through the spiritual master’s representative. And by that, one can grow in one’s spiritual life.
And then that relish that comes through the reciprocation, that is actually the, that is the life of a devotee. That is what helps us move forward. Yes.
Yes, Prabhu. Beautiful. Any concluding words? Beautiful summary.
Beautiful summary. I like the way you do that, Chaitanya Charanjee. Very enlivening.
And you know, there’s so many memorable points. Somehow, I’m happy to, at least at this time, recollect it. Bring them together.
You brought them all together. Excellent. Excellent.
Very good. Thank you very much for this opportunity. Thank you so much.
It is very much. Thank you, Prabhu. Look forward to having you again soon.
Hare Krishna.